Possible New Information on New G4s

[Ensign Paris]

According to MacOSRumors.com:

Faster Superdrives later this year? According to several very interesting documents emailed to us by an international Apple source, yes. The current model Swiss Army Knife of optical drives runs at 6x read/2x write for DVDs and 24x read, 8x CD-R write and 4x CD-RW write. A new version currently being tested at Apple would up virtually all of those speeds - 8X/4X for DVDs and 40X/12X/8X for CDs, respectively. Of course as with all CD drives claiming 40X speeds, real-world performance will be much lower, but it should still be significantly improved over the current 24X speed. If the timeline put forth in these documents proves accurate, we may see this new SuperDrive before the end of the year - in PowerMacs first, of course.
Still longing for more processor performance from the latest PowerMacs before you buy one? Well, if a Dual 1GHz model with 133MHz SDRAM doesn't impress you, how about a Dual 1.4GHz beast employing powerful new PowerPC 7500 processors and screamingly fast 400MHz RapidIO-compatible memory? It has taken months of digging to confirm this, but it looks like the much-hyped PPC 7500, a G4 designed to add some of the features of the G5 family, will be the centerpiece of Apple's mid-year PowerMac update. A 400MHz leap in processor clock is dramatic, but made possible by the 7500's deeper command pipelines, next-generation wiring process and modernized chip architecture. Much more on this rumor in the days and weeks ahead.
New information from one of Apple's key component suppliers suggests the company is working on a mid-sized widescreen flat panel. The new display would be roughly the same height as the company's current 17-inch model, but would be significantly wider to provide a letterbox aspect ratio for watching widescreen DVDs. It is not known whether this would replace or complement the existing standard-aspect 17-inch Studio Display, but resolution is said to be 1152x768 -- same as the Powerbook G4.


I really want a 19" Flat Screen at the same ratio as the current 17", any chance?

Anyway, it looks like good news!

[germanknee]

i don't beleive it.

i think the MPC7500 is the g5, and won't be released until mwsf jan 2003. the MPC7470 will be released mwny july 2002. i have no idea about the superdrives.

[germanknee]

i want to believe it, but i don't.

[teabgs]

I think its possible cause this would be a significant upgrade for once. This would buy apple more time to get the G5's ready while still pumping out great computers for the time being. If this happens, AS soon as it happens I'll be placing an order.

That is if its true

[Beej]

Didn't Moto change the G5 number to 8500?

I think dual 1.4s mid year is wishful thinking.

[germanknee]

beej:

8xxx are imbedded processors for things like routers. 7xxx are for host machines like macintoshes. whether or not the MPC7500 is truly a generation 5 processor, apple will call it that, i think. i doubt the MPC7500 will ready to ship mid year, when they still need to release the MPC7470; and that's not happening at mwty.

MPC7470 mwny july 2002
MPC7500 mwsf jan 2003

[AmbitiousLemon]

yes the g5 is called 8500.

i think maybe what our german friend means though is that apple will release 7500s as G5s.

if this is true i think it is bad news. the superdrive part sounds possible and good but the g4 part sounds like terrible news to me. it basically tells us that apple does not expect to get a g5 out anytime soon and that they are willing to slap a few g5 features onto the g4 in order to rescue the aging chip. i think this tells us that the g4 is way past its prime and that apple has nothing to replace it with. so much so that they are willing to savenge off the g5 in order to sustain the g4. this is bad news in every respect. we get g4s on life support no g5s for a very long time and we are making any possible g5 announcement that much less of a revolution.

i sure hope this is wrong.

[germanknee]

i still think the 7500 is the g5. look at the g4: even after the apollow build they still kept it in the 74xx range. why would it jump. they we are at a 7455 in the current 1ghz pmacs. 7470 i think to be released in july. why would the not g4 not a be a 7490 or such?

[macfreek57]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
yes the g5 is called 8500.

...the g4 part sounds like terrible news to me. it basically tells us that apple does not expect to get a g5 out anytime soon and that they are willing to slap a few g5 features onto the g4 in order to rescue the aging chip. i think this tells us that the g4 is way past its prime and that apple has nothing to replace it with. so much so that they are willing to savenge off the g5 in order to sustain the g4. this is bad news in every respect. we get g4s on life support no g5s for a very long time and we are making any possible g5 announcement that much less of a revolution.


why are you hating on the G4? i think it's still an excellent chip. get pissed at apple for STILL having G3's. what was it? 98 or was it 97?

[3rdpath]

i'm not sure if i agree with apple's use of a transitional "g4/5" but they need to do something. when your consumer and pro models both use the same chips and architecture there is a serious identity ( and performance) problem.

my question is: does current software have to be retooled to take advantage of the upgrades? ( rapid i/o, different ram etc). if so, i'm going to buy soon-no use waiting for a machine that my software won't take advantage of. by the time it does the real g5 will be out....and so it goes-hurry up and wait:confused:

[theranch]

Well....we'll see what happens this week won't we?

[MacManiac1224]

I am not sure about this whole thing, but this is what I think: MOSR sounds about right: I don't think we are getting G5's in summer, but an updated G4, sounds about right: the Rapid I/O would be nice, also a new 400mhz bus would be nice also, at least make them comparable to P4's. The Dual 1.4's sound about right to me. We will see though.

With the G5 situation: I am not sure if Apple would actually take a powered up G4 and call it a G5, only Apple knows, but if Apple doesn't get the G5 out within at least 9 months, we might have problems, considering the AMD Hammer is going to be released in Sept, and the new Intel chip around the same time: we need something, becasue I don't know if the the G4 will be able to compete with the Hammer like it can with the Athlon. We need a 64-bit G5 Apple, can you hear me!

[barkmonster]

The G4 better get a hell of lot faster to compete with AMD as it stands now, the hammer will be even harder to compete with unless we get G5s around the time they're out.

Apple have never used AMD chips in any of their mac vs pc bake offs because they know the mac will lose, even in photoshop. Barefeats have posted a round up of the new G4s including the dual 1Ghz and put them up against a 1.4Ghz Athlon, guess what ? A Dual Ghz G4 is no faster than single CPU 1.4Ghz Athlon!!

here's a little preview of the 20 action photoshop test & an extra result from a 1.2Ghz overclocked dual G4:

Athlon 1.4Ghz : 49 seconds
Pentium 4 1.8Ghz : 59 seconds
Dual 1Ghz G4 : 48 seconds
Dual 1.2Ghz G4 : 40 seconds (38 under OS X)

The hammer will probably be significantly faster than the Athlon so Apple have got to do something about the speed issue or they're most powerful model won't even compete with sub £1,000 PCs, They don't compete with PCs very well to any significant margin now from the results on barefeats.

[rice_web]

I'm guessing that this is a possibility for this Summer, but I wouldn't hold my breath. We'll just have to wait and find, ultimately.

[-=AsukA=-]

If any thing we will see HUGE speed increases in the summer, not 2003. Due to aples statment that they will not be uprading any chips for a while. and dont think they will go against there word, they are absolutly right the market dosent need better computer right now, and not very many will buy due to an unstable market. Wait till summer mac world,im sure we will be blown away probably from 1GHz to 1.8GHz and even a G5!

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by Beej
I think dual 1.4s mid year is wishful thinking.

I think not, the new chip is supposed to have more pipeline stages which, as Intel shows well, = more MHz for less gain. Taking it to 1.4GHz would be like the current jumps of 167MHz at a time.

[rice_web]

Taking it to 1.4GHz would be like the current jumps of 167MHz at a time.

However, with RapidIO, the machine could potentially experience a 30-40% increase in speed, depending on the application. Programs that are heavily optimized for the G4 (especially OS X) would notice the biggest increases, as the Altivec unit would finally have enough bandwidth to live up to its potential (or I would hope).

[dongmin]

When was the last time Apple met or exceeded our expectations regarding processor performance in the last few years? Apple's done good in bring along software and new Mac designs but the CPU side of things have been slow at best.

My bet is for a dual 1.2 ghz machine with a new memory system. I don't know about this Rapid I/O thing; I've only been hearing about it the last six months or so which leads me to think it's still not production-ready.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by dongmin
When was the last time Apple met or exceeded our expectations regarding processor performance in the last few years? Apple's done good in bring along software and new Mac designs but the CPU side of things have been slow at best.

My bet is for a dual 1.2 ghz machine with a new memory system. I don't know about this Rapid I/O thing; I've only been hearing about it the last six months or so which leads me to think it's still not production-ready.

if what people are saying is correct, 1.2GHz would be a bit of a disappointment. At best, Apple would be falling victim to the marketing bug and forgetting that they are breading a customer base that looks past the clock speed and can see that 1.2 on the new chip would not be a flash upgrade. Then again, since they have trained me to look past the clock, I can also see that the other upgrades, like Rapid I/O would = astounding results and 1.2GHz would, as someone put it in an G5/G4 comparison, violate the current G4s.

[MacAztec]

1GHz would probly be the low end, and the 933 or 800 would be an edu. model. That is the time when I shall upgrade :D

[gbojim]

It seems that the biggest problem stems from not knowing a couple of details.

First - Motorola has not listed the 7500 series number in the PPC roadmap - so we don't know if that is going to be G4 or G5.

Second - we have heard a lot about the 7500 but I don't recall seeing anything about whether it is 32 or 64 bit. According to the roadmap the new pipeline, Rapid IO, etc are part of the G5, but so is the 64 bit spec.

Besides, I think the highest immediate priority is the memory interface. PC133 is killing system performance and that will not be changed in the 74xx series chips.

[Catfish_Man]

1) Ram speed is limited by bus speed. To get rid of PC133, you have to have a faster bus.

2) Last I heard, RapidIO didn't support 400MHz busses, it was either 250 or 500. Has this changed, is my memory wrong, or is MOSR smoking something (as usual)?

3) With a new pipeline, a new bus, new ram, better architecture, and much higher clockspeed I think you couldn't call the 7500 a G4 anymore. That kind of improvement would take an entirely new chip.

4) Apps won't have to be reprogrammed to take advantage of it. The faster bus and higher clockspeed will just speed up existing ones.

5) 64 bit is irrelevant. It would provide only two useful increases:
5a) it would support more than 4GBs of ram
5b) it would speed up double precision FP math (mostly scientific stuff)
Other than that, it would not speed things up. The reason why MAJC, Itanium, etc... are faster is that they are massively parallel (VLIW) chips, not because they're 64 bit.

[jaykk]

In this context, read the following article. The g4 still rocks compared to Itanium.
http://thinkAAPL.com/clock.html

[SubFredZero]

A dual 1.4 Ghz.... I would like to see that. Again 800Mhz more : Pentium is going byebye

[DNA]

...NO ONE really seems to KNOW FOR SURE if the 8500 was ever meant to be a desktop chip or not.

[abe]

I've just bought a new Mac (G4/800) and I'm happy with it, except finder speed which I hope will be much faster with Mac OS X 10.2.

So I don't need new hardware ... :-)

[Doraemon]

I still believe that we'll see the G5 in July at MWNY.

Why? Mainly, it's based on hope. ;)

However, Apple needs to get the G5 out of the door. Otherwise Apple will loose it's superiority in power over the intel/AMD competition. Why should professionals buy a Mac then? If the AMD Hammer is really as fast as it seems Apple will significantly loose grounds on the pro sector.

Besides - and I believe a lot of you guys share these thoughts with me - I am NOT going to buy another G4. I am definitely going to buy a G5. And since I believe that a lot of people thing in the same way Apple will have a hard time selling another G4.

We had that when Apple released the QuickSilver 2002. Apple tried to convince people that they were not going to release a new PowerMac any time soon.

[Marianco]

The Motorola 8500 specs indicate that it can support an SIMD (Altivec) processor on chip. This is all they have to add to the current model to make it a G5.

The G4 is specified by Motorola to be an embedded chip - not a desktop chip - as well.

[mischief]

We have no solid evidence to suggest that ANY Moto chip will be Apple's next choice. We know it will come from either Moto or IBM.

The 8xxx and 7xxx series MPC PPC processors from Moto are described on Moto's site as "Embedded" chip types.

A transitional hybrid chip with a faster mobo makes sense from a development prespective. To switch all software globally to 64 bit would kill off any developer loyalty left after the cocoa/carbon mess.

A 32/64 G4 with even a 250 Rapid I/O and DDR at 1.2Ghz would kick AMD/Intel's main chip lines' testicles up next to their respective kidneys.

Adding some tech from IBM's 750FX in the non-Altivec portions and updating the architecture would kill the last criticisms of G4.

Updating the Mobo-intense portions first belays the whole "Yosemite" issue that shot G4 in the foot in the first place. If the Mobo is 2nd or third gen for G5 there will be less issues with the new chip.

[germanknee]

i don't think we'll see a 64 bit chip in a mac for awhile. i've agreed most closely with catfish_man on the g5 topic before. he knows his stuff. i think that the 7500 is the g5 and will be similar to the 8540, but will be for different purposes. catfish_man, i've also heard RapidIO only in increments of 250mhz. I've heard of hypertransport with 400mhz, but i don't think we'll see that in the g5 powermacs. like i've said before: 7470 (g4) mwny jul 02 and 7500 (g5) mwsf jan 03.

[Jookbox]

if that 17" is coming out, i doubt the resolution will be 1152x768. that's a normal format resolution, and not widescreen.

[AmbitiousLemon]

Originally posted by germanknee
i don't think we'll see a 64 bit chip in a mac for awhile. i've agreed most closely with catfish_man on the g5 topic before. he knows his stuff. i think that the 7500 is the g5 and will be similar to the 8540, but will be for different purposes. catfish_man, i've also heard RapidIO only in increments of 250mhz. I've heard of hypertransport with 400mhz, but i don't think we'll see that in the g5 powermacs. like i've said before: 7470 (g4) mwny jul 02 and 7500 (g5) mwsf jan 03.

the problem with your 7400=g4 and 7500=g5 reasoning is that its not based on reality. i mean sure apple coudl decide to call it that. we were all wondering if they would call the apollo chip the g5 and begging and wishing they wouldnt. i think apple knows it cant call a fourth generation chip a fifth generation chip without losing respect (not good to lie to your customers). further more what has moto decide is a g4 and a g5? moto calls the 8500 a g5. this is how it is being marketed (for those embeded technologies). while the 74xx chips are called g4s. apple isnt going to screw with moto's naming just to lie to its customers.

but i do agree with you on one thing: 7470 myny, 7500 mwsf. its the most conservative (and depressing prediction) but i think its the most realistic (especially considering apple's losey record in this area in the last 2 years).

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon


the problem with your 7400=g4 and 7500=g5 reasoning is that its not based on reality. i mean sure apple coudl decide to call it that. we were all wondering if they would call the apollo chip the g5 and begging and wishing they wouldnt. i think apple knows it cant call a fourth generation chip a fifth generation chip without losing respect (not good to lie to your customers). further more what has moto decide is a g4 and a g5? moto calls the 8500 a g5. this is how it is being marketed (for those embeded technologies). while the 74xx chips are called g4s. apple isnt going to screw with moto's naming just to lie to its customers.

but i do agree with you on one thing: 7470 myny, 7500 mwsf. its the most conservative (and depressing prediction) but i think its the most realistic (especially considering apple's losey record in this area in the last 2 years). AL,

german's reasoning is correct. If you take a look at Motorola's PPC map, you'll see that the naming convention is dictated like this.

xyzz, where x determines the market, y determines the "generation" and zz determines the chip number.

Therefore, a 8500 chip is a G5 intended for the embedded market. And the 7500 chip is a G5 for the desktop market. A 7400 chip is a G4 for the desktop market. Etc ....

This is not to say that a 8540 or 7500 chip exists. The only places that I have seen these mentioned are on rumor sites. Not the most reliable sources.

[AmbitiousLemon]

moto also lists the 7xxx chips as embedded chips.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Doraemon
Why should professionals buy a Mac then?

All around better system stability and quality of software (at least speaking from the entertainment post production side of things). :)



Lethal

[AmbitiousLemon]

since germanknee and others seem to like to make up their own versions of what g4 and g5 mean i thought i would share with you moto's roadmap (be prepared this thing has been posted on these threads hundreds of times before but some people just dont seem to get it):

[AmbitiousLemon]

as you can see from the above roadmap (if you have trouble reading it there are pdf versions available) the g5 is listed as being a 85xx processor. the g4 is listed as a 74xx processor. i know we have all seen this many times before but some people seem to have forgotten and have made up their own conventions (ftaok, germanknee...).

currently moto does not list the 85xx processors as anything but embedded because they arent selling them right now for anything but embedded. as you can also see by looking at the lower ends of the chart that back in the day of the g1 moto listed did have spearate naming conventions for embedded and computing products and made quite clear they stated this. that has not been the case for many years. if you go to moto's website and try to buy a 85xx chip for your computer you will find you cant, this does not mean that the g5 chips will never go into computers it only means that they are not selling them yet and does not signify any specific naming convention. moto is sticking with the convention they have used for many years and is sticking with the roadmap they have used for many years. moto isnt going to rain on apple's day by annoucing they have a g5 for computing before apple unveils such a chip. so until then dont think that by scanning moto's site you will find references to a g5/85xx being anything but embedded. this is how they are marketing it now.

apple CANT just call any chip a g4 or a g5 or whatnot. they are using moto's convention.

[Kid Red]

With so little info on the G5 how do you or anyone reliable know that Moto is doing the chip? IBM could be doing the G5 and the 75xx/85xx on Moto's map would not then apply.

[ogun7]

Originally posted by Kid Red
With so little info on the G5 how do you or anyone reliable know that Moto is doing the chip? IBM could be doing the G5 and the 75xx/85xx on Moto's map would not then apply.

IBM doesn't use the current version of Altivec technology that Motorola has
(Moto has patents on it)

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by ogun7


IBM doesn't use the current version of Altivec technology that Motorola has
(Moto has patents on it)

So why can't IBM make the next Powermac chip without Altivec but, instead, with something that works pretty much the same way?

[AmbitiousLemon]

i think we would all prefer to see ibm take over the pro line, but it just doesnt seem likely when moto's already got a chip while ibm doesnt have altivec. its pretty silly when i start thinking about it. ibm has bad ass chips and moto has altivec. if the two would just share (or if ibm would just buy moto's semiconductor department and all pertainent patents) then we would be sitting pretty. but as long as these two keep fighting over apple nothing is going to happen. we will keep getting crappy cips from moto and ibm will keep making amazing chips that get ignored because of a lack of altivec.

i keep hoping the aim alliance will surprise us with ibm buyouts new processors based on ibm tech with moto's altivec and SOI. not much an alliance as it is with moto keeping altivec to themselves. some people around here are convinced ibm's chip is the next processor for the pro line (i dont think they would call it a g5, prolly a new name entirely) but until ibm's altivec clone gets up to speed or ibm just puyts its money where its mouth is and buys moto we are stuck with moto as our only hope for a next gen pro chip.

[ogun7]

I have the same hopes AL, but with Moto's shares doing so badly in the marketplace, I don't think they will issue licenses to Big Blue so that they get undercut in their lucrative embedded chip business. Anyway, Didn't I hear somewhere in the grapevine that Uncle Steve is pursuing chip research and manufacture in-house, ie; Sand?

[whatever]

As Motorola's biggest Power PC customer, Apple can call the chip anything they want.

But anyway. Everyone, myself included, keeps getting hung up on the hardware aspect of the industry. There's only a few pieces of software that really require 1GZ processor. These days software companies are writing bloated pieces of crap. Think about it, back in the 80's Microsoft Word ran very well on a Mac. Does it run much faster today? Key to the whole thing is the OS. Apple currently has the best consumer OS on the market. Last night I downloaded Flash MX for OS X I put it through the ringer it performed better than Flash 5 (on 500mhz G4). Today I installed Flash MX on my 1.2GZ Micron and after 30 minutes of doing the same test it locked my entire system. On my Mac I was ripping and listening to the new Joey Ramone CD (my vote for album of the year), had IE and PhotoShop opened (gotta love Space), I was also running Top and CPU moniter. On my craptron I was Flash and I had a couple folders opened on my desktop. I was listening to music, but that was on my iPod.

So what's my point, good question. Stop getting hung up on the processor speed and hardware. It's the software that really matters.

That's just my two cents. Expect a TiBook upgrade followed by a G4 iBook.

[dualburn001]

Originally posted by whatever
As Motorola's biggest Power PC customer, Apple can call the chip anything they want.

But anyway. Everyone, myself included, keeps getting hung up on the hardware aspect of the industry. There's only a few pieces of software that really require 1GZ processor. These days software companies are writing bloated pieces of crap. Think about it, back in the 80's Microsoft Word ran very well on a Mac. Does it run much faster today? Key to the whole thing is the OS. Apple currently has the best consumer OS on the market. Last night I downloaded Flash MX for OS X I put it through the ringer it performed better than Flash 5 (on 500mhz G4). Today I installed Flash MX on my 1.2GZ Micron and after 30 minutes of doing the same test it locked my entire system. On my Mac I was ripping and listening to the new Joey Ramone CD (my vote for album of the year), had IE and PhotoShop opened (gotta love Space), I was also running Top and CPU moniter. On my craptron I was Flash and I had a couple folders opened on my desktop. I was listening to music, but that was on my iPod.

So what's my point, good question. Stop getting hung up on the processor speed and hardware. It's the software that really matters.

That's just my two cents. Expect a TiBook upgrade followed by a G4 iBook.

well when it comes to video rendering, the hardware is needed as well, and that's way everyone wants the g5.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by whatever
As Motorola's biggest Power PC customer, Apple can call the chip anything they want.

So, if I make a business that becomes Apple's biggest customer, by that logic, can I start calling the iMac an iLuxo and the PowerMac a FastBitchMicrosoftBox???? Of course I wouldn't, but the point is that, by that logic, I could.

But anyway. Everyone, myself included, keeps getting hung up on the hardware aspect of the industry. There's only a few pieces of software that really require 1GZ processor. These days software companies are writing bloated pieces of crap. Think about it, back in the 80's Microsoft Word ran very well on a Mac. Does it run much faster today?

The only problem with that is that the MS Word of today is FAR more advanced than so many of the previous versions. While it is slow in its nature, it also has been designed to accommodate a large range of different customer situations.

Key to the whole thing is the OS. Apple currently has the best consumer OS on the market. Last night I downloaded Flash MX for OS X I put it through the ringer it performed better than Flash 5 (on 500mhz G4). Today I installed Flash MX on my 1.2GZ Micron and after 30 minutes of doing the same test it locked my entire system. On my Mac I was ripping and listening to the new Joey Ramone CD (my vote for album of the year), had IE and PhotoShop opened (gotta love Space), I was also running Top and CPU moniter. On my craptron I was Flash and I had a couple folders opened on my desktop. I was listening to music, but that was on my iPod.

No alarms and no suprises there.

So what's my point, good question. Stop getting hung up on the processor speed and hardware. It's the software that really matters.

You don't often do large render jobs, either 2 or 3D, do you?! If you want a machine that uses word, no MHz no longer matters, if you want a true work horse, you need more and more power. Just look at SGI who, according to an article I was reading, are linking up something like 512 Itanium processors with 1 Terrabyte of RAM. Can't tell me that they only do that because they are hung up on hardware.

[Catfish_Man]

...can be interpreted several ways. It does say the G5 is an 85xx chip. It also says that 8xxx chips are not for computers. This points to one of these options:

1) the G5 (Motorola one, anyway) is not going to be used in computers
2) Motorola is abandoning it's naming scheme and using an 8xxx chip in a computer
3) A desktop version of the G5 will be released under the 75xx name

based on what we've gathered from the rumors/news Germanknee and I have decided that the third is most reasonable. Other people may have different opinions.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
...can be interpreted several ways. It does say the G5 is an 85xx chip. It also says that 8xxx chips are not for computers. This points to one of these options:

1) the G5 (Motorola one, anyway) is not going to be used in computers
2) Motorola is abandoning it's naming scheme and using an 8xxx chip in a computer
3) A desktop version of the G5 will be released under the 75xx name

based on what we've gathered from the rumors/news Germanknee and I have decided that the third is most reasonable. Other people may have different opinions.

Firstly, you will notice that the roadmap is extensive from the G4 back and slim from the G5 up. This shows that the G5 and G6 sections are just a guide and are not complete. Mot have not added the full details of their G5 movement because there is nothing finished to detail. Also, there is nothing to say that the G5 HAS to be either a 7500 or an 8500. The basis for this structure that people keep bringing up is based on the G3 and G4 architecture. Previous to the G3, numbers were 60x for desktops while other systems used 5xx, 5xxx, 8xx and 8xxx. There is no structure for Mot processor naming over the many generations, the stucture only works for 2 generations at a time according to the roadmap.

[ftaok]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man
...can be interpreted several ways. It does say the G5 is an 85xx chip. It also says that 8xxx chips are not for computers. This points to one of these options:

1) the G5 (Motorola one, anyway) is not going to be used in computers
2) Motorola is abandoning it's naming scheme and using an 8xxx chip in a computer
3) A desktop version of the G5 will be released under the 75xx name

based on what we've gathered from the rumors/news Germanknee and I have decided that the third is most reasonable. Other people may have different opinions. I too interpret the Roadmap like Catfish and Germanknee. All I was trying to say was that the 8540 would not be the G5 used in any Mac. If Motorola was/is too manufacture the G5 for Apple, it would be of a 75xx derivative. Also, I believe that if Motorola makes a 7500 chip, it would have all of the features listed in the G5 section. If the chip doesn't have those features, then it'll be a 74xx chip.

What Apple wants to call the chip is entirely up to them.

Personally, I think that Motorola will continue with the G4 for iMac and (eventually) iBooks. IBM will be forced (persuaded) to license Altivec technology for G5s for use in computing applications only. This would be so IBM wouldn't compete against Motorola with a G5 for routers and stuff like that.

BTW, this is just my theory. Based only on conjecture and voodoo.

[Catfish_Man]

What the hell? It just chopped off half my post. Oh well. I was saying that the IBM PPC roadmap says that their next PPC chip will have an integrated SIMD engine. That sounds a lot like Altivec to me.

[jefhatfield]

moto is a great and powerful company but apple consists of only 12 percent of moto's market and apple is just too small to dictate anything right now...sounds familiar, unfortunately

i like the idea (maybe naive) that ibm and moto share and help whip the wintel stranglehold on the market

there are definitely many factors involved here and this is my simplistic view of the situation

going against intel is a huge task as amd has found and maybe we all (basic consumers) need to look at other features other than pure clock speed of a processor

my 2 cents

[AmbitiousLemon]

i certainly dont think it is naive to think that ibm or apple would (together or separtely) acquire moto's semiconductor department. moto is hurting their stock is dropping, andthey have numerous times discussed openly the posibility of selling or simply abandoning their semiconductor department. if things over at moto get bad enough apple will have to do something, in fact i believe it is somewhat naive to think apple would just sit by idlely while the maker of their (nearly) only chip used in their computers goes under.

as far as discussion on the naming scheme of the processors, some of you need a serious logic injection. you seem to be just making stuff up. you guys are seeing patterns in the naming that doesnt exist and seem to be looking right past the very simple 74xx=g4 85xx=g5 scheme.

but talk of the next generation pro chip coming from ibm is far more interesting. for one, we would finally have a competant partner for apple pro models. also it would be very likley that apple would get rid of the Gx naming scheme finally.

[Mr. Anderson]

And why 'finally' get rid of the Gx naming convention. Its all just a name, nothing more. If you called it a booger7, it wouldn't matter. All that really seems to be important is that its better, in some way, than a booger6. And for marketing purposes you'd have to call it something, not just 'Apple's New Processor'

Hey there you go ANP1

[madamimadam]

I was taking a look at the IBM site and noticed something astounding. Apart from the fact that Motorola and IBM both make processor advancment claims and neither recognises the other for work on the PowerPC, the Motorola 1GHz chip has a power consumption of 21.3W where are the competing IBM chip consumes 3.6W @ 800MHz (Note: IBM has a 1GHz PowerPC but I could not see power consumption stats).

I know which one shows more potential out of the two.

Just to confirm, both companies claim their processors to run at the same speed, IBMs just used FAR less power and the simple assumption would be far less heat also. Although, IBM markets the 750FX as a consumer processor.

[gbojim]

The reason the IBM chip dissipates so much less power is the 750FX chip does not have 2MB of L3 cache nor does it have SIMD like the Motorola chip.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by gbojim
The reason the IBM chip dissipates so much less power is the 750FX chip does not have 2MB of L3 cache nor does it have SIMD like the Motorola chip.

Those must require a LOT of power then.... what a drawback

[ftaok]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
as far as discussion on the naming scheme of the processors, some of you need a serious logic injection. you seem to be just making stuff up. you guys are seeing patterns in the naming that doesnt exist and seem to be looking right past the very simple 74xx=g4 85xx=g5 scheme.A.L.

I'm not making anything up. If you look at the roadmap carefully, you'll see that 7xx, and 7xxx chips are for the computing and high-end embedded markets. 8xxx chips are for the communications sector. You'll also see that 82xx chips are G2, 85xx chips are G5, and 86xx chips are G6. 74xx chips are G4. The only chip there that defies my interpretation is the 750 which is a G3.

All that I'm saying is that Moto's naming convention uses the first digit to determine the market and the second digit to determine the generation. Thus, the rumored 7500 chip would be a G5 for computing or high-end embedded applications. The rumored 8540 chip would be a G5 for communications applications.

That's my logic and I'm sticking by it. Personally, I don't think that the 7500 exists at all. I'm believing that IBM will take over G5 (or whatever you want to call it) development for computers only with licensed technology (Alti-vec) from Motorola. This leaves the G5 development with Alti-vec for routers and such to Motorola. Everyone leaves happy. Apple gets a more reliable supplier for their pro-line Macs, IBM gets their hands on Alti-vec (although they may not be too happy, but at least they get to supply Apple's high end Macs), Motorola gets licensing fees from IBM. Ice cream and cake for everyone.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by ftaok
Ice cream and cake for everyone.

At least for the attorneys who draft the agreements between IBM and Moto! Gotta pay for the kids' educations.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by ftaok
A.L.

I'm not making anything up. If you look at the roadmap carefully, you'll see that 7xx, and 7xxx chips are for the computing and high-end embedded markets. 8xxx chips are for the communications sector. You'll also see that 82xx chips are G2, 85xx chips are G5, and 86xx chips are G6. 74xx chips are G4. The only chip there that defies my interpretation is the 750 which is a G3.


Rewrite of incorrect statement follows:
"The only chip(s) there that (defy) my interpretation (are) the 750 which is a G3(, the 60x, the 8xx, the 5xx and the 5xxx and the fact that, according to my theory, the G3/4 are ONLY embedded processors never to be used elsewhere).

[mcrain]

I was checking out moto's site, and they had a press release about the power pc chip hitting 1 ghz and another power pc chip that had the same pin structure as an older chip and used lower power, and that chip had now hit 800 mhz. Does anyone know if that chip is a g4 designed for laptops? I mean, could there be an 800 mhz tibook in the works, or is that some weird embedded moto chip used for vacuums or something like that?

[germanknee]

well, we don't have an agreement with naming, but i think that everyone would rather have ibm than moto. and, hopefully, no one still thinks we'll see a g5 at mwny 02. of course i would like that, but it's not going to happen. i think definitely new g4s at mwny 02, but not what ensign paris posted from macosrumors at the start of the thread.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by germanknee
well, we don't have an agreement with naming, but i think that everyone would rather have ibm than moto. and, hopefully, no one still thinks we'll see a g5 at mwny 02. of course i would like that, but it's not going to happen. i think definitely new g4s at mwny 02, but not what ensign paris posted from macosrumors at the start of the thread.

To put it simply, I do not want a G5 for the 64-bit and so forth, I want it for the DDR and Radid I/O ect.

Basically, if mid-year we get a G4 with those features, I will not care that it is a G4, I will be one of the first in line with my credit card details.

I know I can not use 64-bit processing at the moment, I can, however, use DDR and Rapid I/O, but I would settle for DDR, with a much faster bus, obviously.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen


To put it simply, I do not want a G5 for the 64-bit and so forth, I want it for the DDR and Radid I/O ect.

Yes

[OSUbuckeyefan]

Originally posted by germanknee
... hopefully, no one still thinks we'll see a g5 at mwny 02.

Nope, cuz wer're gonna see them at MWT '02 tonight! hehehehe jk

[germanknee]

madamimadamtimallen:

i don't care about 64 bit either, not until apps i use start implementing it. i don't think that will be for at least another year and a half.

[cb911]

a G5 at MW Tokyo? i don't think so. we'll be lucky to get a 800MHz G4 in the TiBook, but even that probably won't happen until MY New York.

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by cb911
a G5 at MW Tokyo? i don't think so. we'll be lucky to get a 800MHz G4 in the TiBook, but even that probably won't happen until MY New York.

While I would like to note, I thought the G5 @ Tokyo joke was a good laugh, it is a shame that the above are fact and not just pessimism.... I just can not wait for a hardware upgrade of some value as well as an upgraded PowerBook (not as caring about superfast PowerBook upgrade.... the current PowerBook suits my needs down to a tee.... just could be a little faster for OSX, though).